jogs

Never thought of that play. Like chess thinking moves ahead. Now South would know North doesn't have the ♣A.

Assume experts understand. Answer me this. Bidding contest. Why are there often 6 or more different answers to the same question? Sometimes regular partners are both in the panel. And they give different answers to many of the questions. Again this suggests there is no agreement to how tricks are generated. What hands are worth.

I'm convinced that no one, including the world class experts, fully understands how tricks are generated.

Never with any vulnerability or any form of the game. Want a pattern with a singleton. Want points to be in the long suits. They have a better chance of getting too high if you are silent. Also they wont know to play you for all the cards.

Take a term from tennis. It is unforced errors. Often it means taking a call, when one should have been passing to partner. Playing captain too often.

I'm not the one advocating a more precise point count system. On the opening bid only interested in knowing if the hand falls within the range of the chosen bid. What I am suggesting is during the auction when a suit fit has been found, players should convert to counting tricks, not points. Use joint pattern of partnership to estimate tricks not to fine tune points. Combined trumps and shortness are components of joint pattern. Have not seen the experts suggest this approach to evaluating the tricks of a partnership on a specific board.

The singleton ace is taking only one trick. The consensus expert opinion on hand evaluation seem to think there is only one variable for estimating tricks. I think they are all wrong. There are two independent random variables. Power for high card points and its location within the partnership hands. Pattern or joint pattern pair of the partnerships is the second random variable. Shortness(singletons and voids) is a component of pattern, not power. It isn't worth any number of points. It may be worth extra partial tricks. Our tricks. E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 + e 'e' is the error of the estimates from normal(μ,σ²). The next term of this equation will adjust for shortness. E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 + f/s + e The flatness/skewness adjustment.

Essentially my view is don't bid 3 of the major until they force us. On some hands with 6 trumps I won't bid 3 of the major after they force us. ♠QJx ♥Q87542 ♦KJ ♣KJ This hand rates to be unlucky. This wont happen very often. With most 6 card suits we are willing to compete with 3M when they force us. That's a poor strategy on their part. One opponent stretches to compete and the another opponent makes a close double. He should be pleased his partner pushed us one level higher.

'jogs' Axxxx, Axxx, Axx, A 'dake50' *** The variance is "extremely high" at an observed value of A=5 +-0.22 in Kxx=3-points?? That's 1/5 of a point! .................... Think you misunderstood what I meant. That ace stiff is worth only one trick. The ace from Axxxx potentially makes the fourth and fifth 'x's' worth a trick. Therefore the ace from Axxxx is worth much more than the ace from ace stiff.

I'm kinda convinced 1-2-3-stop is a poor strategy. Why go the the 3 level unforced? 6322. May not want to go to the 3 level at all. 3M -1. Hate this result when many in the field are in 2M making.

It's all semantics. Isn't the one making the final decision taking control? Agree with 'the one with extra offence/defence'. Now we need to discuss what constitutes extra offense/defense. 3/2 decisions. Think we should err on the side of bidding. 5431 for opener is enough for ODR. For responder a side suit doubleton may be enough.

I don't believe that's true. Look at this auction. 1♥ - p - 2♥ - p p - 2♠ Neither partner has had an opportunity to show shortness. Who should decide whether to double or compete with 3♥?

That's why I lead the ♠2. It was the only (suit) lead you didn't consider.

Didn't you misplay trick 1? Win with the ace. Shouldn't you win 6 tricks? 2 spades, 2 hearts, and two diamonds. Down 2.

Larry Cohen has chosen examples where LoTT works. http://www.newbridgelaw.com/ Not true. Lawrence gives examples where the law leads players astray. Lawrence has chosen examples where LoTT does not work. There is no mathematical law. It should state expected tricks = total trumps + e where e is the error from normal(u, σ² ) u is the mean of e. for trumps =< 18 u is approximately 0. for trumps > 18 u is negative. as trumps approach 26 u becomes more and more negative.

Vul: never. Non-vul: rarely. Must be known weak opponents. LHO has singleton or doubleton spade. The first three tricks are ♠K, ♠A, spade ruff. This hand looks unlucky.

Axxxx, Axxx, Axx, A Every one of those aces are worth a different value. It's mostly not worth the effort to use another point count. The variance of any and all methods of evaluation is extremely high. The secret of good bidding is making the proper adjustment during the subsequent rebids after learning more about the cards around the table.

1=4=4=4. 1♦-1♠,? Almost always 1NT rebid. Would only rebid 2♣ if all the points are in the minors.

I solved that problem years ago. Behind dummy always wait at least 30 seconds (after dummy is shown) before playing to trick one. Wait the 30 seconds even when you hold a singleton in the suit.

None of the top four seeds made the final 4. Has this happened before?

Where's the 13th card? Raise to 3♣. Then pard would be in a better position to know if clubs are running.

Exchange two cards with West and South. West ♠ 5 ♥ J74 ♦ QJ642 ♣ KQ84 Now West will play(?) the ♦Q on the opening ♦A. It will still be right to play the ♣A on trick 2.

After the ♦A, play the ♣A no matter what West diamond played. Now the club card from West will guide East.

Sorry, lost a word. Meant "suggesting a diamond lead". This is from the Robson/Segel book on partnership bridge.

Passed hand, no way this hand should be suggesting diamonds or looking for slam. The 3♥ bidder will be on lead if they go to 5♣. 4♦ is heart support. Suggesting a diamond against clubs.